A leader making decisions on their personal agenda and not what is best for the long term health of the people or state they serve or just good business is a poor plan. Now I do not think corporations should run rampant but it seems that florida should be actively encouraging a level of fairness that encourages all parks in one of the largest tourist areas on earth to fell confident expanding for the long term and an environment where their workers feel welcome.
Reedy Creek Improvement District
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
-
Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.
I think it’s important to put the overview here.
District Counsel Paul Huck outlined the overview of the agreement:
District Counsel Paul Huck outlined the overview of the agreement:
- Disney stipulates that the Development Agreement and Restrictive Covenants are null and void
- Disney does not contest the District assessment that the 2032 Comprehensive Plan is null and void
- The District will amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, consulting with Disney for a new plan
- District and Disney will dismiss the claims and counterclaims
- Disney will dismiss the Public Records case
- The labor services agreement between the District and Reedy Creek Energy Services will end 2028
- Disney owns the long-term mitigation credits and the District will not impede with those credits
- The District and Disney will not contest the actions of the Reedy Creek Improvement District prior to DeSantis’ takeover
- Disney will seek permission to defer briefing in the federal appeals lawsuit against Ron DeSantis, pending negotiations and other new development with the District
- Aug 5, 2018
- 1,810
- 5,375
"We both got bloody noses, back to square one"
Doesn't reinstitute RCID as it existed prior to Desantis coming in.
Yeah, the way I read it a lot of this is a loss for Disney from what I was expecting.
- Jul 8, 2019
- 1,267
- 2,418
Let me give it a shot...
Actually I'll just wait until a qualified person writes an article about it.
The 90-second blurb from Desantis (at a press conference for something else) sounded awfully conciliatory... kind of seemed like cooler heads prevailed on both sides and they'll just set things back to basically how they were.
I would say that the thing Disney probably got was an assurance that a State Prison won’t be built in the District.Let me give it a shot...
Actually I'll just wait until a qualified person writes an article about it.
The 90-second blurb from Desantis (at a press conference for something else) sounded awfully conciliatory... kind of seemed like cooler heads prevailed on both sides and they'll just set things back to basically how they were.
An outcome where both sides are probably a little unhappy with some things but also both can say they “won” is the best outcome.
- Feb 15, 2012
- 17,129
- 47,033
How so? I’m relatively ignorant on this, but aren’t the board members themselves still relatively at odds with Disney’s interests?
Disney's self-governance is done. They now answer to a government board appointed by the Governor (whomever that is) going forward. This isn't the end of the world--Universal is building a new theme park under that same system--but not having every inspector on Disney's payroll is bound to drive up costs and wait times.
Disney's last-minute attempts to circumvent this new scheme by adopting rules to bind the new board were dismissed as unlawful. But the developments they approved (I think the Starcruiser area? don't quote me on that) can continue. Realistically the new board probably would've approved them anyway, because they will create jobs and tax revenue.
Disney is dropping both its state and federal lawsuits, basically accepting its fate that this is the new normal.
Both sides are attempting to make nice because, again, new normal. WDW needs the government board to approve much of its development, government officials want the Mouse to know "no hard feelings, we're still happy to take your campaign donations." So both sides posturing so they don't appear weak, but not too much to piss off the other guys because this morning they have to work together again.
"Taking on Disney" is a move that plays much better on a national level than it does on a local level ... at least, when the local level reaps huge economic benefits from Disney's numerous theme parks.
Disney pays a lot of protection money--I mean, "campaign donations"--at every level of Florida government. Realistically in a couple years you'll see agency capture of this new board, and they'll be a de facto rubber stamp like RCID was. But it's still extra bureaucracy that long run will probably cost billions.
Also it needs to be stressed a lot of Floridians from all sides of the political spectrum have been calling for this to happen for decades. See, e.g., famous author Carl Hiasaan's book Mouse Trap from the 90s. It's just a facet of 2020s politics that when a Republican or Democrat politician champions an issue, the other half of the country feels the need to instantly oppose them.
- Aug 5, 2018
- 1,810
- 5,375
RCID was probably illegal and needed oversight, but the main issue here was that it was clearly a punitive measure by DeSantis. Getting involved in "culture war" issues (read: acknowledging that non-Cis non-Het non-White people exist and are equally deserving of love and respect) is what sparked this off, and state government capitalized on that to launch a failed presidential campaign.
- Feb 15, 2012
- 17,129
- 47,033
RCID was created the same way as the CTOB, it's not illegal. It's just a punitive measure by the governor.
that's how I viewed it. When running for president, he thought it would help to have a big win. Now that it is over, the tone changed. I could be dead wrong but that is how it looks from someone who doesn't live in Florida.
Not objectively "illegal" -- subjectively unethical, unfair, bad policy, bad for the State of Florida and Orange country? Quite probably. But there's no question the State had the right to do this is in the 60s. The fact they've laughed at everyone who's sought the same deal since tells you how ridiculous it was. But completely legal.
That said, movement at this time came from two men desperate to be president trying to play swingin' Richard with each other. The great irony being neither one will ever sit in the Oval Office. But as someone who actually lives in Orange County, whatever the motivation this proved to be a good thing in the end.
